HARRISBURG – For procedural reasons, a three-judge panel from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has thrown out an appeal brought forward by a man who had claimed multiple courts criminally conspired against him and thrown out his extortion complaint against a lumber distributor.
Superior Court judges Jack A. Panella, Carolyn H. Nichols and Dan Pellegrini dismissed an appeal on May 4 filed by plaintiff Anthony Stocker Mina, against defendant Lumber Liquidators.
“Appellant Mina appeals from the order of the trial court, which granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and the motion for summary judgment of appellee Lumber Liquidators, and dismissed Mina’s complaint,” Nichols said.
“Appellant accuses appellee of extortion with help from both the trial court and this Court and accuses the courts of criminal conspiracy. Because appellant’s failure to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure prevents us from providing meaningful appellate review, we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.”
Mina had previously filed a complaint in magisterial district court against Lumber Liquidators for a breach of warranty. Mina obtained a default judgment, and the company failed to properly file a timely appeal.
Regardless, Mina attempted to file a complaint as if the notice of appeal had been accepted. When the prothonotary did not allow Mina to file the complaint, he filed a petition for leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc, which the trial court ultimately dismissed.
“Appellant then commenced the underlying action asserting that appellee’s failed attempt to file the notice of appeal constituted a malicious abuse of process. The trial court granted appellee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on June 21, 2019. On Nov. 19, 2019, the court granted appellee’s motion for summary judgment on appellee’s counterclaims to enjoin appellant from filing additional pleadings in this action,” Nichols said.
When the case was appealed to the Superior Court, Nichols pointed out that according to statute, the Rules of Appellate Procedure “state unequivocally that each question an appellant raises is to be supported by discussion and analysis of pertinent authority.”
“Here, our review of appellant’s brief reveals numerous violations of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. For example, appellant’s brief does not contain a statement of jurisdiction, an order or other determination in question, a statement of the scope and standard of review or a statement of the case,” Nichols said.
“Additionally, appellant’s argument is not divided into as many parts as there are questions to be argued and is devoid of citation to pertinent authority or any references to the record.”
Nichols explained that in the argument portion of Mina’s brief, he never addressed the actual matter on appeal – the trial court’s dismissal of his complaint for abuse of process, which doomed his appeal.
“Appellant’s one-and-a-half-page argument consists of allegations that [Lumber Liquidators] actually filed a notice of appeal from the default judgment and accusations against the trial court of fraudulent and illegal acts. Appellant then reproduces the statutes defining perjury, theft by extortion, harassment and criminal conspiracy. He has not developed any argument in support of his claims, and we will not do so on his behalf,” Nichols said.
“Based on the foregoing, we conclude that appellant has failed to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because of the considerable defects in his appellate brief, we are unable to conduct meaningful appellate review without acting as appellant’s counsel. Therefore, we dismiss appellant’s appeal.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 39 EDA 2020
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas case 2014-34075
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com